Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

RFD for PRC should grant Tibet sovereignty

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Debate is here (http://www.debate.org...). Vote is for bsh1's DDOlympics.

Based on the resolution, I will assume sole burden of proof lies on Pro, as he is presenting the affirmative case.

R2
Pro presents a comprehensive case against PRC sovereignty of Tibet; it's annexation violated international law, a major religious leader was forced to flee, a multiple rebellions have been stopped. Pro then presents sources listing Tibet as being oppressed to a higher degree than North Korea, the death of over 1 million Tibetans, suppression of liberties, and destruction of religious temples. He concludes by saying the only solution to these issues is a "free Tibet"; I assume by this he means a sovereign one, as defined in R1 ("A country's independent authority and the right to govern itself"). Overall, a solid case.

Con argues differently; he presents a devil's advocate view, as he himself notes. He argues that China's ownership of Tibet traces back to imperial times, arguing it would be akin to asking the US to give up Hawaii or Texas. He argues that Tibetans are, in fact, better off under Chinese rule, citing increased life expectancy and economic growth. He notes even the Dalai Lama thinks China should retain Tibet. Moreover, he argues China has no reason to give up Tibet due to its major economic resources and border.

My take on R2:
Overall I have to give R1 to Con. Con's biggest strength is as the one without the BOP; he gives enough doubt to make it not clear. His best point here is "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet". This is exceedingly clever - it shifts the borden even further, so now Pro has to establish why despite this China should give Tibet over. He needs to establish why human rights are reason enough to give over Tibet.

R3
Pro off the bat seems confused by Con's argument; he cedes that Tibet is, in fact, useful for China. That's why they invaded, he notes, comparing it to Poland in WWII. He runs Con's argument on its head by questioning "why benefiting China a good thing". Pro outright dismisses Con's argument in relation to imperialism, dismissing them as a "red herring". I have to deduct credit for that - arguments don't go away just because you don't like them. I say Pro ceded the point to Con here. Pro question's the correlation between life expectancy increase, noting it as a fallacy. This is a valid point and he effectively refuted Con here. Pro also argues Tibet's rising population is not due to Tibetans, but ethnic Chinese who are displacing nomadic Tibetans. Pro agrees China is helping Tibet, but at the expense of what makes it Tibet. Pro also questions Tibet's value militarily - he argues it would be easier for India to invade through Burma. This is valid.

Con doubles down on the self-interest argument, saying that China should not give up Tibet because that would hurt China. Con claims that whether or not benefitting China is a good thing is "irrelevant" to his broader point; I'm not so sure of that. Con also argues that China has long had international recognition of sovereignty over Tibet, saying "everyone" agreed to it; I don't see a source to back this up, however. He also speculates on the life expectancy issue, arguing that China's technology is what caused it. He goes back to burden of proof again, and then argues that China is not swamping Tibet as Tibet's population is still 90% Tibetan.

My take on R3:
Con seems content to play keep away at this point due to his "Tibet is good for China" argument, but Pro presents some really sound rebuttals that refute a lot of Con's case. The biggest issue remains, however, whether or not China should give up Tibet - I think Pro only just barely squeaks by here. Pro has a big mountain to climb.

R4
Pro notes he understands where Con is coming from and reiterates his main point. He argues Tibet was indeed independent of China for decades before the invasion, and argues that Con has failed to prove his life expectancy argument's correlation. Pro agrees BoP is on him, and presents a moral argument: he says ". China has a moral duty to give freedom to the land it has long oppressed. A country's highest duty is its moral one, not to serve itself economically. Acting in brutal self-interest is not what a country should do, it is what a country should not do. If all countries acted with disregard to moral duty and in self-interest, society as we know it would collapse". This argument is excellent, but why does it come so late? This should have been his immediate response in R3 once he saw the direction Con took. Pro's conclusion is that China has oppressed Tibet and must let it become free - he condemns Con for arguing on purely economic rather than moral grounds. He says Con loses because he failed to take all arguments into account. He also notes Con as having ceded both his international law argument and Indian war argument.

Con argues that most countries did indeed recognize Tibet as part of China; Pro's own source, upon inspection, does suggest this. Con argues somewhat bizarrely that Tibet's oppression is no different than that of ordinary Chinese. Con argues Tibet lacks the funds to support medical care. He argues that China has no reason to commit "national suicide", and that by getting rid of Tibet it would hurt ordinary Chinese who rely on the resources. He argues morals are not universal and that China is fine in keeping Tibet.

My thoughts on R4:
Pro needed to establish the reason for morality early on, not in the last round. Has he really established that morals trump economics? If there's even a question, I think Con has a credible claim to a win. By ceding this point for so long it becomes really difficult to actually take it seriously. Con again mostly plays keep away but, honestly, does he have a reason not to? Pro presented a great argument for Tibetan independence. But did he give a great argument as to why China should grant them sovereignty? I don't think he did.

My vote
I decided that conduct points, S&G points, and source points will not be awarded. Conduct was, overall, good between both sides. Contentious, but not anything other than heated debate. I do commend Pro on an exceptional job formatting; his arguments had few, if any, errors and had great syntax, whereas Cons were, frankly, quite messy and at times had kind of glaring errors (such as misspelling "yeah" as "yea"). But they did not meet a low enough standard I felt would warrant points being awarded. And while Con in particular used many well-regarded sources, both sides drifted away from sources in the last two round. The difference just wasn't enough to give him the points.

I do award arguments to Con. He did what he needed to do - he introduced enough doubt that Pro did not meet the high BoP this debate required. Con did very little other than this and many of his arguments held little water. But Pro never adequately answered his question of "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet" until it was too late. Pro had a high burden of proof, and while he may have made a great argument for something else, I don't feel he met it.
Tree_of_Death
Posts: 763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:27:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:03:44 AM, TN05 wrote:
Debate is here (http://www.debate.org...). Vote is for bsh1's DDOlympics.

Based on the resolution, I will assume sole burden of proof lies on Pro, as he is presenting the affirmative case.

R2
Pro presents a comprehensive case against PRC sovereignty of Tibet; it's annexation violated international law, a major religious leader was forced to flee, a multiple rebellions have been stopped. Pro then presents sources listing Tibet as being oppressed to a higher degree than North Korea, the death of over 1 million Tibetans, suppression of liberties, and destruction of religious temples. He concludes by saying the only solution to these issues is a "free Tibet"; I assume by this he means a sovereign one, as defined in R1 ("A country's independent authority and the right to govern itself"). Overall, a solid case.

Con argues differently; he presents a devil's advocate view, as he himself notes. He argues that China's ownership of Tibet traces back to imperial times, arguing it would be akin to asking the US to give up Hawaii or Texas. He argues that Tibetans are, in fact, better off under Chinese rule, citing increased life expectancy and economic growth. He notes even the Dalai Lama thinks China should retain Tibet. Moreover, he argues China has no reason to give up Tibet due to its major economic resources and border.

My take on R2:
Overall I have to give R1 to Con. Con's biggest strength is as the one without the BOP; he gives enough doubt to make it not clear. His best point here is "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet". This is exceedingly clever - it shifts the borden even further, so now Pro has to establish why despite this China should give Tibet over. He needs to establish why human rights are reason enough to give over Tibet.

R3
Pro off the bat seems confused by Con's argument; he cedes that Tibet is, in fact, useful for China. That's why they invaded, he notes, comparing it to Poland in WWII. He runs Con's argument on its head by questioning "why benefiting China a good thing". Pro outright dismisses Con's argument in relation to imperialism, dismissing them as a "red herring". I have to deduct credit for that - arguments don't go away just because you don't like them. I say Pro ceded the point to Con here. Pro question's the correlation between life expectancy increase, noting it as a fallacy. This is a valid point and he effectively refuted Con here. Pro also argues Tibet's rising population is not due to Tibetans, but ethnic Chinese who are displacing nomadic Tibetans. Pro agrees China is helping Tibet, but at the expense of what makes it Tibet. Pro also questions Tibet's value militarily - he argues it would be easier for India to invade through Burma. This is valid.

Con doubles down on the self-interest argument, saying that China should not give up Tibet because that would hurt China. Con claims that whether or not benefitting China is a good thing is "irrelevant" to his broader point; I'm not so sure of that. Con also argues that China has long had international recognition of sovereignty over Tibet, saying "everyone" agreed to it; I don't see a source to back this up, however. He also speculates on the life expectancy issue, arguing that China's technology is what caused it. He goes back to burden of proof again, and then argues that China is not swamping Tibet as Tibet's population is still 90% Tibetan.

My take on R3:
Con seems content to play keep away at this point due to his "Tibet is good for China" argument, but Pro presents some really sound rebuttals that refute a lot of Con's case. The biggest issue remains, however, whether or not China should give up Tibet - I think Pro only just barely squeaks by here. Pro has a big mountain to climb.

R4
Pro notes he understands where Con is coming from and reiterates his main point. He argues Tibet was indeed independent of China for decades before the invasion, and argues that Con has failed to prove his life expectancy argument's correlation. Pro agrees BoP is on him, and presents a moral argument: he says ". China has a moral duty to give freedom to the land it has long oppressed. A country's highest duty is its moral one, not to serve itself economically. Acting in brutal self-interest is not what a country should do, it is what a country should not do. If all countries acted with disregard to moral duty and in self-interest, society as we know it would collapse". This argument is excellent, but why does it come so late? This should have been his immediate response in R3 once he saw the direction Con took. Pro's conclusion is that China has oppressed Tibet and must let it become free - he condemns Con for arguing on purely economic rather than moral grounds. He says Con loses because he failed to take all arguments into account. He also notes Con as having ceded both his international law argument and Indian war argument.

Con argues that most countries did indeed recognize Tibet as part of China; Pro's own source, upon inspection, does suggest this. Con argues somewhat bizarrely that Tibet's oppression is no different than that of ordinary Chinese. Con argues Tibet lacks the funds to support medical care. He argues that China has no reason to commit "national suicide", and that by getting rid of Tibet it would hurt ordinary Chinese who rely on the resources. He argues morals are not universal and that China is fine in keeping Tibet.

My thoughts on R4:
Pro needed to establish the reason for morality early on, not in the last round. Has he really established that morals trump economics? If there's even a question, I think Con has a credible claim to a win. By ceding this point for so long it becomes really difficult to actually take it seriously. Con again mostly plays keep away but, honestly, does he have a reason not to? Pro presented a great argument for Tibetan independence. But did he give a great argument as to why China should grant them sovereignty? I don't think he did.

My vote
I decided that conduct points, S&G points, and source points will not be awarded. Conduct was, overall, good between both sides. Contentious, but not anything other than heated debate. I do commend Pro on an exceptional job formatting; his arguments had few, if any, errors and had great syntax, whereas Cons were, frankly, quite messy and at times had kind of glaring errors (such as misspelling "yeah" as "yea"). But they did not meet a low enough standard I felt would warrant points being awarded. And while Con in particular used many well-regarded sources, both sides drifted away from sources in the last two round. The difference just wasn't enough to give him the points.

I do award arguments to Con. He did what he needed to do - he introduced enough doubt that Pro did not meet the high BoP this debate required. Con did very little other than this and many of his arguments held little water. But Pro never adequately answered his question of "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet" until it was too late. Pro had a high burden of proof, and while he may have made a great argument for something else, I don't feel he met it.

Thanks for the great vote! :)
"If life were easy, it wouldn't be difficult."--Kermit the Frog

#Treebrokethechurchbells--DD

"I am after all the purveyor of intellectually dishonest propaganda." --YYW
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 7:38:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:27:21 PM, Tree_of_Death wrote:
At 9/11/2016 4:03:44 AM, TN05 wrote:
Debate is here (http://www.debate.org...). Vote is for bsh1's DDOlympics.

Based on the resolution, I will assume sole burden of proof lies on Pro, as he is presenting the affirmative case.

R2
Pro presents a comprehensive case against PRC sovereignty of Tibet; it's annexation violated international law, a major religious leader was forced to flee, a multiple rebellions have been stopped. Pro then presents sources listing Tibet as being oppressed to a higher degree than North Korea, the death of over 1 million Tibetans, suppression of liberties, and destruction of religious temples. He concludes by saying the only solution to these issues is a "free Tibet"; I assume by this he means a sovereign one, as defined in R1 ("A country's independent authority and the right to govern itself"). Overall, a solid case.

Con argues differently; he presents a devil's advocate view, as he himself notes. He argues that China's ownership of Tibet traces back to imperial times, arguing it would be akin to asking the US to give up Hawaii or Texas. He argues that Tibetans are, in fact, better off under Chinese rule, citing increased life expectancy and economic growth. He notes even the Dalai Lama thinks China should retain Tibet. Moreover, he argues China has no reason to give up Tibet due to its major economic resources and border.

My take on R2:
Overall I have to give R1 to Con. Con's biggest strength is as the one without the BOP; he gives enough doubt to make it not clear. His best point here is "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet". This is exceedingly clever - it shifts the borden even further, so now Pro has to establish why despite this China should give Tibet over. He needs to establish why human rights are reason enough to give over Tibet.

R3
Pro off the bat seems confused by Con's argument; he cedes that Tibet is, in fact, useful for China. That's why they invaded, he notes, comparing it to Poland in WWII. He runs Con's argument on its head by questioning "why benefiting China a good thing". Pro outright dismisses Con's argument in relation to imperialism, dismissing them as a "red herring". I have to deduct credit for that - arguments don't go away just because you don't like them. I say Pro ceded the point to Con here. Pro question's the correlation between life expectancy increase, noting it as a fallacy. This is a valid point and he effectively refuted Con here. Pro also argues Tibet's rising population is not due to Tibetans, but ethnic Chinese who are displacing nomadic Tibetans. Pro agrees China is helping Tibet, but at the expense of what makes it Tibet. Pro also questions Tibet's value militarily - he argues it would be easier for India to invade through Burma. This is valid.

Con doubles down on the self-interest argument, saying that China should not give up Tibet because that would hurt China. Con claims that whether or not benefitting China is a good thing is "irrelevant" to his broader point; I'm not so sure of that. Con also argues that China has long had international recognition of sovereignty over Tibet, saying "everyone" agreed to it; I don't see a source to back this up, however. He also speculates on the life expectancy issue, arguing that China's technology is what caused it. He goes back to burden of proof again, and then argues that China is not swamping Tibet as Tibet's population is still 90% Tibetan.

My take on R3:
Con seems content to play keep away at this point due to his "Tibet is good for China" argument, but Pro presents some really sound rebuttals that refute a lot of Con's case. The biggest issue remains, however, whether or not China should give up Tibet - I think Pro only just barely squeaks by here. Pro has a big mountain to climb.

R4
Pro notes he understands where Con is coming from and reiterates his main point. He argues Tibet was indeed independent of China for decades before the invasion, and argues that Con has failed to prove his life expectancy argument's correlation. Pro agrees BoP is on him, and presents a moral argument: he says ". China has a moral duty to give freedom to the land it has long oppressed. A country's highest duty is its moral one, not to serve itself economically. Acting in brutal self-interest is not what a country should do, it is what a country should not do. If all countries acted with disregard to moral duty and in self-interest, society as we know it would collapse". This argument is excellent, but why does it come so late? This should have been his immediate response in R3 once he saw the direction Con took. Pro's conclusion is that China has oppressed Tibet and must let it become free - he condemns Con for arguing on purely economic rather than moral grounds. He says Con loses because he failed to take all arguments into account. He also notes Con as having ceded both his international law argument and Indian war argument.

Con argues that most countries did indeed recognize Tibet as part of China; Pro's own source, upon inspection, does suggest this. Con argues somewhat bizarrely that Tibet's oppression is no different than that of ordinary Chinese. Con argues Tibet lacks the funds to support medical care. He argues that China has no reason to commit "national suicide", and that by getting rid of Tibet it would hurt ordinary Chinese who rely on the resources. He argues morals are not universal and that China is fine in keeping Tibet.

My thoughts on R4:
Pro needed to establish the reason for morality early on, not in the last round. Has he really established that morals trump economics? If there's even a question, I think Con has a credible claim to a win. By ceding this point for so long it becomes really difficult to actually take it seriously. Con again mostly plays keep away but, honestly, does he have a reason not to? Pro presented a great argument for Tibetan independence. But did he give a great argument as to why China should grant them sovereignty? I don't think he did.

My vote
I decided that conduct points, S&G points, and source points will not be awarded. Conduct was, overall, good between both sides. Contentious, but not anything other than heated debate. I do commend Pro on an exceptional job formatting; his arguments had few, if any, errors and had great syntax, whereas Cons were, frankly, quite messy and at times had kind of glaring errors (such as misspelling "yeah" as "yea"). But they did not meet a low enough standard I felt would warrant points being awarded. And while Con in particular used many well-regarded sources, both sides drifted away from sources in the last two round. The difference just wasn't enough to give him the points.

I do award arguments to Con. He did what he needed to do - he introduced enough doubt that Pro did not meet the high BoP this debate required. Con did very little other than this and many of his arguments held little water. But Pro never adequately answered his question of "why should China give up such the INCREDIBLY, highly beneficial, and strategic importance that is Tibet" until it was too late. Pro had a high burden of proof, and while he may have made a great argument for something else, I don't feel he met it.

Thanks for the great vote! :)

Thanks for a great debate!